ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
The Individual
While I am normally a fan of the "Greatest Good" computation, I have to say that I've never met an implementation that wasn't broken.
Any policy which "benefits the community" but which, somehow, fails to benefit its members, is fatally flawed.
From my own observations, I find that (generally) when individuals are permitted to act for their own benefit, they will, sooner or later, form organized activities founded on "enlightened self interest."
The trouble pretty much starts when an individual or a small collection of individuals acting as a group, determine that they can bias this "self interest" thing in their favor if they can convince enough other individuals to agree to let them dictate policy and exert control over those individuals for "the common good."
The effects of collective control can be minimized by instituting guarantees of individual right and freedom, but even so, over time, those who view collective "welfare" as their mission will act to curtail individual right and liberty as much as possible.
Individuals understand that an organized group will prevail and thrive better than the individuals separately. Still, if the organization ever becomes onerous to the liberty of the individual, it has exceeded its usefulness.
The "welfare" of the "community" in the context of our country and its culture is best served by the strict preservation of individual right and liberty, not by the subordination of the individual interest to that of the community.
It's easy to make arguments that individual nutjobs should have their liberty abridged to the degree they threaten the "community." Not so. Their liberty should be abridged to the degree they threaten individuals.
My conclusion then is that the "greatest good" is best served by the strict preservation of individual right, liberty, and freedom.
While I am normally a fan of the "Greatest Good" computation, I have to say that I've never met an implementation that wasn't broken.
Any policy which "benefits the community" but which, somehow, fails to benefit its members, is fatally flawed.
From my own observations, I find that (generally) when individuals are permitted to act for their own benefit, they will, sooner or later, form organized activities founded on "enlightened self interest."
The trouble pretty much starts when an individual or a small collection of individuals acting as a group, determine that they can bias this "self interest" thing in their favor if they can convince enough other individuals to agree to let them dictate policy and exert control over those individuals for "the common good."
The effects of collective control can be minimized by instituting guarantees of individual right and freedom, but even so, over time, those who view collective "welfare" as their mission will act to curtail individual right and liberty as much as possible.
Individuals understand that an organized group will prevail and thrive better than the individuals separately. Still, if the organization ever becomes onerous to the liberty of the individual, it has exceeded its usefulness.
The "welfare" of the "community" in the context of our country and its culture is best served by the strict preservation of individual right and liberty, not by the subordination of the individual interest to that of the community.
It's easy to make arguments that individual nutjobs should have their liberty abridged to the degree they threaten the "community." Not so. Their liberty should be abridged to the degree they threaten individuals.
My conclusion then is that the "greatest good" is best served by the strict preservation of individual right, liberty, and freedom.